From: Eli Z. <el...@gn...> - 2012-06-11 16:05:38
|
> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:32:19 +0200 > From: Kai Tietz <kti...@go...> > > It isn't a big mistake to fix things in the proper way vendor defines > its ABI. It was always a flaw to have it different implemented in > gcc. Maybe so, but this flaw is now scattered all over the world, so making the change _now_ creates a potential for many subtle bugs. Anyway, I guess this is all water under the bridge now, so the only practical issue is how to adapt with the least pain. > So this feature has changed, and along other C++ ABI things, which > are always none-backward compatible, also the __thiscall convention > has changed for 4.7. As reference read the feature-page of gcc. The announcement allowed it to be interpreted as if the -mms-bitfields and __thiscall were not the only ABI changes. If there are indeed other ABI changes in this GCC release, could you please name them, or point to some place(s) where they are listed and explained? If these are the _only_ ABI changes, then do you agree with those who think that -mms-bitfields change for C programs is not a grave incompatibility since it is only very rarely seen in practice? IOW, if I distribute a couple dozen of C libraries, all compiled without the -mms-bitfields switch, how urgent is it for me to produce versions of those libraries compiled with -mms-bitfields? TIA. |